Eryn J. Pond

The appellant, Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill, appealed the dismissal of her defamation, conspiracy, and negligence claims against four defendants (Dr. Angus Maciver, André Picard, Carly Weeks, and Alheli Picazo) under Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act), and the associated costs order totaling over $1.1 million.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the claims were strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs).

The court affirmed that the "fair comment" defence was prima facie available to Picard, Weeks, and Picazo, and that the appellant failed to demonstrate "serious harm" causally linked to the defendants' expressions, which would outweigh the public interest in protecting free expression.

The court also upheld the substantial indemnity costs award, distinguishing the case from general guidance due to its complexity and the number of defendants.

The plaintiff in a defamation action brought a motion for leave to amend his statement of claim, including adding his professional corporation as a plaintiff, and alternatively sought to extend the time to issue a statement of claim in a placeholder action.

A non-party sought and was granted leave to intervene to oppose certain amendments.

The court denied the amendment to add the professional corporation on the basis of issue estoppel, as a previous judge had already denied the same request.

The court also denied amendments that improperly sought document production or contained scandalous information about the non-party.

The motion to extend time in the placeholder action was dismissed as an abuse of process and a collateral attack on the previous judge's order.

Success being divided, no costs were awarded.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiffs' defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the moving parties (defendants) sought full indemnity costs totalling over $1.1 million.

The court awarded full indemnity costs as requested, subject to a reduction for the costs of non-active counsel, clerks, or students.

The court also apportioned liability, finding one plaintiff jointly and severally liable only for costs related to the OMA dispute, while the other plaintiff was solely liable for costs related to the COVID-19 dispute.

The plaintiffs, two physicians, brought a $12 million defamation action against over 20 defendants, including other physicians, journalists, and media organizations.

The claims arose from two main disputes: an internal Ontario Medical Association (OMA) dispute and public criticism of the plaintiffs' controversial tweets regarding COVID-19, in which they opposed vaccines and lockdowns and promoted hydroxychloroquine.

The defendants brought anti-SLAPP motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that the defendants' expressions related to matters of public interest and that the plaintiffs failed to show their claims had substantial merit or that the defendants lacked valid defences, such as fair comment and qualified privilege.

The court also found that the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions far outweighed any harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

The action was dismissed against all defendants.

The defendant brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action arising from a tweet about the plaintiff media outlet.

The court found the tweet related to a matter of public interest.

While the plaintiff established a real prospect of success on the merits and that the defences of fair comment and justification might not succeed, it failed to demonstrate the existence of harm resulting from the tweet.

The court concluded the public interest in continuing the action did not outweigh the public interest in protecting the defendant's freedom of expression.

The action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant.

The appellants sought dismissal of a defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, arising from an email sent by the appellant lawyer to a professional listserv alleging that the respondent physician had improperly altered medical assessors' reports and changed a doctor's impairment classification in the context of statutory accident benefits disputes.

The motion judge allowed the anti-SLAPP motion and dismissed the defamation proceeding; the Court of Appeal reversed that decision and remitted the defamation claim to the Superior Court.

A five-justice majority of this Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the respondent had discharged his burden under s. 137.1(4) by demonstrating grounds to believe his defamation claim had substantial merit, that the appellants had no valid defence of justification or qualified privilege, and that the public interest in permitting the defamation action to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the impugned expression.

The majority also partially admitted fresh evidence tendered by the respondent, including a letter from the assessed specialist and letters from counsel for the magazine that republished the email.

Four justices dissented, concluding that the appellant lawyer had a valid defence of qualified privilege that gave her expression a real prospect of success at trial, and that the public interest in protecting her communication to fellow plaintiff-side personal injury lawyers outweighed the harm to the respondent's reputation.

The defendant, Alan Eugeni, a former pilot for Air Georgian Limited, brought a motion to dismiss a defamation claim under Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act).

Air Georgian's claim stemmed from a self-published book by Eugeni, his website, and comments quoted in a Financial Post article, primarily focusing on the book.

The court found that Eugeni's expression related to a matter of public interest (aviation safety).

While Air Georgian demonstrated substantial merit to its defamation claim and Eugeni conceded he had no valid defence for the purpose of the motion, the court ultimately concluded that the harm suffered by Air Georgian was not sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting Eugeni's expression.

The book had limited sales (247 copies), and broader public concerns about Air Georgian's safety were already present in widely circulated media and government reports.

The court noted a significant power imbalance and indicia of a SLAPP suit, leading to the dismissal of Air Georgian's claim.

The plaintiffs, having successfully resisted the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion, sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The defendants argued against costs, citing s. 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act, which presumes no costs unless an award is appropriate.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' request for costs, finding that the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion was not frivolous or unmeritorious, despite the plaintiffs' success in allowing their defamation claims to proceed.

The court emphasized that the anti-SLAPP legislation encourages challenges to potential SLAPP suits and that merely dismissing an anti-SLAPP motion is insufficient to justify a costs award under s. 137.1(8).

The defendants, owners and publishers of a Portuguese-language newspaper, brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' defamation actions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiffs, a financial advisor and his company, alleged defamation based on articles published about syndicated mortgages, which they claimed falsely implicated them in fraudulent and criminal conduct.

The court applied the four-step anti-SLAPP analysis, finding that while the publications related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiffs demonstrated substantial merit to their claims, reasonable grounds to believe the defendants lacked valid defenses (truth, fair comment, qualified privilege), and that the harm suffered by the plaintiffs was sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

The motion was dismissed, allowing the defamation actions to proceed.

Appeal from a Superior Court decision on a motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant brought multiple motions, including a successful section 137.1 motion but also unsuccessful constitutional and procedural motions.

The Court of Appeal addressed costs for both the motion and the appeal.

On the motion, no costs were awarded due to the presumption in section 137.1(8) and the offsetting effect of the appellant's unsuccessful meritless motions.

On the appeal, the appellant was awarded partial indemnity costs reduced to account for time spent on unsuccessful constitutional and procedural arguments.

The appellant, a medical doctor who prepares impairment assessments for insurers in motor vehicle accident claims, sued the respondent, a lawyer and OTLA president-elect, for libel following an email posted to the OTLA Listserv.

The email alleged that the respondent had altered medical reports and misrepresented expert opinions in a catastrophic impairment arbitration.

The motion judge dismissed the action under section 137.1 of the Court of Justice Act (Anti-SLAPP legislation), finding that although the expression related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff failed to meet the merits threshold and the harm was outweighed by the public interest in protecting the expression.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in his application of sections 137.1(4)(a) and (b), and that the plaintiff had met his onus on both provisions.

The court also rejected constitutional challenges under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This decision quantifies the costs awarded to the plaintiff following a contempt sentencing against certain defendants (Balita Newspaper, Balita Media Inc., and Tess Cusipag).

The plaintiff sought full indemnification for legal fees, counsel fees, and disbursements totaling over $38,000 plus HST.

The contemnors argued the fees were excessive.

The court found the plaintiff's claimed costs fair, reasonable, and proportionate, emphasizing the contemnors' prior misconduct and the high burden of proof in contempt proceedings.

The court ordered the contemnors to pay the plaintiff $43,187.08 in all-inclusive costs.

The Superior Court of Justice determined the appropriate sentence for Tess Cusipag, Balita Newspaper, and Balita Media Inc. for criminal contempt of court.

The defendants had previously been found to have libeled the plaintiff and violated an injunction prohibiting the repetition of false allegations.

Despite a prior award of punitive damages and a finding of contempt, the defendants remained unrepentant and unwilling to purge their contempt.

The court emphasized the need to compel obedience to court orders and uphold the rule of law.

Tess Cusipag was sentenced to 21 days in a provincial reformatory, and Balita Newspaper and Balita Media Inc. were each fined $5,000, with joint and several liability for the plaintiff's costs.

This is an appeal from a damages award in a defamation action.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's assessment of both compensatory and punitive damages awarded to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the trial judge properly applied legal principles in quantifying damages.

The court rejected the appellants' argument that the award was out of line with other defamation cases involving political figures, noting that the trial judge found this was a personal matter, not a political case.

The appellants' conduct—repeating false statements with knowledge of their falsity and intent to continue—warranted substantial punitive damages for deterrence purposes.

The plaintiff moved for an order finding the Media Defendants (Balita Newspaper, Balita Media Inc., and Tess Cusipag) in criminal contempt of a permanent injunction issued by Lederman J. on July 13, 2016.

The injunction prohibited the Media Defendants from publishing statements suggesting the plaintiff committed criminal fraud or was a pathological liar.

The court found that the Media Defendants intentionally re-published and encouraged others to disseminate the same defamatory allegations, asserting their truth and attributing their prior loss to a conspiracy, despite knowing the injunction.

The court concluded that the defendants' conduct constituted criminal contempt due to its open, continuous, and flagrant violation of a court order, transcending a private dispute and affronting the administration of justice.

The defendants successfully brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action.

In this costs endorsement, the court considered whether to depart from the presumption of full indemnity costs under s. 137.1(7).

The court denied the plaintiff's request to file a further affidavit and found no reason to depart from the statutory presumption.

The court awarded full indemnity costs of $282,943.42 to the defendant Bent and partial indemnity costs of $30,000 to the defendant Lerners LLP.

The plaintiff in a defamation action brought a preliminary motion prior to the hearing of the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiff sought to record oral arguments, compel answers to cross-examination refusals, amend the statement of claim to add a corporate plaintiff, and file late affidavit evidence.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding that the proposed amendments would frustrate the purpose of the anti-SLAPP legislation and that there was no reasonable explanation for the late filing of evidence.

The moving party (defendant) brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the responding party's (plaintiff's) defamation action.

The action arose from an email sent by the moving party to a restricted listserv of plaintiff-side personal injury lawyers, which criticized the responding party's conduct as a medical expert in preparing executive summary reports for insurance companies.

The responding party also challenged the constitutionality of s. 137.1 under ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

The court found that the email related to a matter of public interest.

The court held that the responding party failed to show there were grounds to believe the moving party had no valid defence, as the defences of substantial justification and qualified privilege were reasonably likely to succeed.

Furthermore, the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue.

The court also dismissed the Charter challenges, finding that reputation is not a free-standing right under s. 7 and that potential defamation plaintiffs do not constitute an analogous group under s. 15(1).

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

Following a successful summary judgment motion, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs.

The defendants challenged the plaintiff's bill of costs, arguing for a reduction and a split between partial and substantial indemnity scales, particularly for the pre-summary judgment stages.

The court, considering the defendants' serious misconduct and scurrilous attack on the plaintiff's reputation, awarded substantial indemnity costs throughout the proceeding.

However, the total amount was reduced from the plaintiff's requested $109,122.98 to $90,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable by the media defendants.

The plaintiff, Senator Tobias Enverga Jr., brought a motion for summary judgment against Balita Newspaper, Balita Media Inc., and Tess Cusipag for defamation.

The defamatory publications, including an article and Facebook posts, accused Senator Enverga of criminal fraud, being a "biological liar" and "pathological liar" and misrepresenting the charitable status of his foundation.

The court found the words defamatory and dismissed the defendants' defences of justification and fair comment, as they failed to prove the truth of the allegations and conducted no independent investigation.

The court awarded the plaintiff $150,000 in general and aggravated damages, $100,000 in punitive damages, and issued a permanent injunction against the defendants to prevent further defamatory publications, citing their malicious conduct and refusal to retract or apologize.